City blasted for 'death march' delay of Pier II condo project

PORTSMOUTH — A “comedy of errors” and “97-day death march” by city officials delayed construction of a condominium project on the site of the old Pier II restaurant, said attorney Peter Loughlin, during a successful bid to gain an extension of the building permit for the project.

Comment

By Elizabeth Dinan

seacoastonline.com

By Elizabeth Dinan

Posted Dec. 18, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Updated Dec 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM

By Elizabeth Dinan

Posted Dec. 18, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Updated Dec 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM

» Social News

PORTSMOUTH — A “comedy of errors” and “97-day death march” by city officials delayed construction of a condominium project on the site of the old Pier II restaurant, said attorney Peter Loughlin, during a successful bid to gain an extension of the building permit for the project.

Loughlin appeared before the city's Board of Adjustment Tuesday night, on behalf of property owner Susan Conway, and described “months of inaction” by the city which he said cost his client thousands of dollars a day and a missed construction season. He presented the board with a history of emails showing Conway's contractor had consistently and regularly been in contact with city officials since the summer, but was unable to gain the go-ahead to resume construction.

“They did everything in their power to proceed with construction,” Loughlin said. “We don't want to be here tonight. Look at my letter to (City Attorney) Bob Sullivan. It says don't make me come in here and say these things.”

Loughlin said construction of Conway's waterfront condos was delayed throughout 2012 due to the replacement of the new Memorial Bridge, adjacent to Conway's property. Because “all roads were blocked with construction equipment,” Loughlin said his client described those “extraordinary circumstances” to the city in May 2012 to obtain an extension of the building permit.

He said because of the bridge construction, Conway's contractors were unable to proceed until July of this year, knowing the building permit expired on Oct. 18. He said the lead contractor began communicating with the city, first through the building inspection office, then was referred to the legal department. According to Loughlin, the contractor was met with delays due to staff vacations, slow responses, unproductive meetings and last-minute news that they needed to complete a new form.

“To this date, we still do not have a single edit to the document submitted, and that was months ago,” Loughlin said.

Conway's attorney also noted that bridge contractors parked in the area for free, while his client was told that new city policy limits work on public property by privately-retained contractors. Conway's team planned to erect construction equipment on a sidewalk and “sliver of land,” he said, but were told they need approval from the City Council.

“This blows my mind totally,” Loughlin said. Conway “was told if you can do it on your own property, it would be different. So (the contractor) started looking into hiring a barge. In the city of the open door you can't use public property? I wish I took a half-dozen Valium before I came to this meeting.”

Contractor Dana Adams told the board he initially dealt with a building inspector, then was referred to Assistant City Attorney Suzanne Woodland, and was later told Assistant City Attorney Jane Ferrini was handling the matter.

“It's bounced around, as you can see,” he said.

The day before the building permit was set to expire, the city reported that no extension would be granted, Loughlin said.

BOA Vice Chairman Arthur Parrott called the chain of emails between the city and Conway's construction team “astounding,” noting that city messages said, “I'm on vacation, she's on vacation, we'll get back to you.”

City Attorney Robert Sullivan said Loughlin's “recitation of the facts is essentially correct.” However, Sullivan told the BOA, the city issued the original building permit in June 2009 and construction could have begun “the next day.”

“It was not the city's fault that nothing happened all those years,” he said. “The city granted two extensions to build this building.”

In summary, Sullivan said, a construction mitigation plan was not agreed upon, the building permit expired, and the building inspector denied another renewal.

BOA Chairman David Witham noted that the construction plan was agreed upon in 2009 and the city later changed the required paperwork. But, he said, “I'm trying to wrap my head around why it took three months.”

After hearing from both sides and reading the emails, BOA member Christopher Mulligan said the applicant “was not treated fairly in this case.”

“The city was foot-dragging, frankly,” he said.

Resident Ruth Griffin weathered a snowstorm to attend the Tuesday night meeting and spoke in favor of the building permit extension.

“It seems as though there's all kinds of roadblocks by the city,” she said. “It is my hope that I live long enough to see those condos up there.”

The BOA voted unanimously to extend the building permit for the project for another year.